Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum

Fend, Reinhard, Kolk, Arend H. J., Bessant, Conrad, Buijtels, Patricia, Klatser, Paul R., Woodman, Anthony C.·2006·Journal of Clinical Microbiology

Abstract

Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) is time-consuming and operator dependent and lacks sensitivity. A new method is urgently needed. We investigated the potential of an electronic nose (EN) (gas sensor array) comprising 14 conducting polymers to detect different Mycobacterium spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the headspaces of cultures, spiked sputa, and sputum samples from 330 culture-proven and human immunodeficiency virus-tested TB and non-TB patients. The data were analyzed using principal-component analysis, discriminant function analysis, and artificial neural networks. The EN differentiated between different Mycobacterium spp. and between mycobacteria and other lung pathogens both in culture and in spiked sputum samples. The detection limit in culture and spiked sputa was found to be 1 × 10 4 mycobacteria ml −1 . After training of the neural network with 196 sputum samples, 134 samples (55 M. tuberculosis culture-positive samples and 79 culture-negative samples) were used to challenge the model. The EN correctly predicted 89% of culture-positive patients; the six false negatives were the four ZN-negative and two ZN-positive patients. The specificity and sensitivity of the described method were 91% and 89%, respectively, compared to culture. At present, the reasons for the false negatives and false positives are unknown, but they could well be due to the nonoptimized system used here. This study has shown the ability of an electronic nose to detect M. tuberculosis in clinical specimens and opens the way to making this method a rapid and automated system for the early diagnosis of respiratory infections.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jcm.01591-05

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Fend, R., Kolk, A. H. J., Bessant, C., Buijtels, P., Klatser, P. R., & Woodman, A. C.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
Published
2006-06
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
2039-2045
ISSN
  • 0095-1137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-660X
OpenAlex
W2110001112
Cited by
172
References
0
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/jcm.01591-05
The paper
Fend, R., Kolk, A. H. J., Bessant, C., Buijtels, P., Klatser, P. R., & Woodman, A. C. (2006). Prospects for Clinical Application of Electronic-Nose Technology to Early Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in Culture and Sputum. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01591-05

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.